It is a peculiarity of the European continent that there are four independent Anglican jurisdictions side by side: the Church of England with its Diocese in Europe, The Episcopal Church, based in the United States of America, with its Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, and the Lusitanian and Spanish Reformed Episcopal Churches which are extra-provincial dioceses in the Anglican Communion. Alongside these, there are the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht, with dioceses in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Switzerland. All of them are in full communion with each other, but they lack a comprehensive jurisdictional structure; consequently, there are cities where two or three bishops exercise jurisdiction canonically totally separately.
Groups of English people began to settle on the European continent many centuries ago. According to Wigram they began doing so in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean by the seventh and eighth centuries.Footnote 1 In the nineteenth century, Bishops of London acquired jurisdiction over churches of the Church of England on the Continent. When the Diocese of Gibraltar was founded in 1842 the Bishop of London retained jurisdiction only in northern and central Europe, and from 1883 he appointed a suffragan, the Bishop of Fulham, to supervise the chaplaincies in this area. In 1970, the two posts were combined and the Rt Revd John Satterthwaite became Bishop of Fulham and Gibraltar. Eventually, in 1980, the two jurisdictions were united as the Diocese in Europe, the forty-fourth diocese of the Church of England.
Since the early nineteenth century, not only English but American people also travelled through Europe and felt an urgent desire to have churches of their own tradition in those places which they visited or where they settled permanently. Accordingly, a number of American Episcopal congregations were established in major cities of the Continent, often where English churches already existed. Pursuant to the Constitution of the Episcopal Church these congregations are under the jurisdiction of the presiding bishop, who delegates this jurisdiction to a bishop in charge, similar to a suffragan bishop. These congregations in Europe form the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe,Footnote 2 which is strictly speaking not a diocese but practically enjoys a very similar position, especially since the presiding bishop has permitted the bishop in charge to be elected by the annual convention of the Convocation.
While the Diocese in Europe and the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe are part of Churches located outside the European continent, there are two indigenous and independent Anglican dioceses on the Iberian peninsula, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church and the Lusitanian Church of Portugal. The ‘Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelic Church’ (ILCAE) emerged in the course of the second half of the nineteenth century. It was organised in 1880 by a group of former Roman Catholic clergy and lay people who refused to accept the dogmas of the First Vatican Council (‘Vatican I’) concerning the universal jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Pope. They desired a church government shared by clergy and laity together and also a liturgy in Portuguese. Since 1980 the ILCAE has been a full member of the Anglican Communion under the metropolitical authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.Footnote 3
The Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church came into being at roughly the same time as the Lusitanian Church and was likewise organised mainly by former Roman Catholic clergy. Its first bishop was consecrated by bishops of the Church of Ireland in 1894.Footnote 4 Like the Lusitanian Church, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church became a full member of the Anglican Communion under the metropolitical authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1980.
The Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht are not Anglican Churches but have entered into a relationship of communion with the Churches of the Anglican Communion, beginning with the Bonn Agreement with the Church of England in 1931. In 1723 the Bishopric of Utrecht, founded by St Willibrord in the seventh century and elevated to the rank of archbishopric by Pope Paul IV in 1559, elected an archbishop whom the Pope did not recognise but excommunicated together with his followers; these organised as an independent Catholic Church with the dioceses of Utrecht, Haarlem and Deventer.
The Old Catholic Churches of Germany, Austria and Switzerland were formed in the late nineteenth century to provide spiritual care for those Catholics who were not prepared to accept the proclamation by Vatican I of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. The bishops of these churches are in the historic episcopate through the Archbishopric of Utrecht, which maintained the apostolic succession independently from Rome.Footnote 5
The organisational structure of the Union of Utrecht resembles the Anglican Communion before the establishment of the Anglican Consultative Council. The International Bishops' Conference, though far smaller in numbers, shows some analogy to the Lambeth Conference. Like the Lambeth Conference it has no direct jurisdiction over the member churches of the Union. However, the Bishops' Conference has not hesitated to suspend the membership of individual bishops when their diocese was deemed to have deviated from Old Catholic principles of faith and order. For example, the German bishop's right to vote was temporarily suspended when the German Old Catholics introduced the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Besides the International Bishops' Conference there have been Old Catholic congresses and an Old Catholic lay forum, but these do not enjoy any jurisdictional competence.
PROPOSALS FOR UNITY
The fact that all these churches are in full communion with each other but separate in their jurisdictional structures has been regarded as an irregularity. The Lambeth Conference of 1968 declared:
The Conference deplores the existence of parallel Anglican jurisdictions in Europe and in other areas, and recommends that the Lambeth Consultative Body (or its successor) should give early attention to the problems involved. The Conference recommends that, in any such area where there exists a Church with which we are in full communion, that Church should participate in the consultations.Footnote 6
Accordingly, in the course of the second half of the twentieth century there were several attempts to attain a merger of the Anglican jurisdictions into a single structure. But all these attempts eventually failed. Apparently, the fear of a loss of identity prevailed. The Old Catholic Churches, were, it seems, never seriously involved.
Now, after a time of silence, the problem seems to have appeared on the agenda again. The annual convention of the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, meeting in Rome in October 2013, passed two Resolutions saying:
Resolved, that congregations of the Convocation seek to collaborate with their neighboring Old Catholic congregations by developing mutual ministries in worship, program and outreach, and by increasing knowledge and awareness of each other's traditions.
Resolved, that the Convocation enthusiastically support the Bishop in Charge of the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe and the Archbishop of Utrecht in their joint efforts to foster and develop our common life in Christ.Footnote 7
The Episcopal News Service's report on this part of the convention was headed ‘One church in Europe’. According to this report ‘Old Catholics and Episcopalians in Europe have agreed to enter into deeper communion, seeking new ways to collaborate, preparing a common structure, and leading the way towards the ultimate goal of becoming one church in Europe.’ The Old Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht is reported to have said, ‘On the very long term it could be the aim to have only one ecclesiastical structure that would be really both Old Catholic and Episcopal … For the time being we have to organize the steps we have to take in order to realize this long term goal.’Footnote 8
This new awareness might lead to a new attempt to get all the Churches mentioned above, not only two of them, together in a comprehensive structure comprising the whole Continent. If such a new attempt is to be more promising than its predecessors it will be necessary to pay due regard to the wish, apparently strong in all jurisdictions, to preserve the cherished traditions inherited from their respective mother churches. In what follows I shall try to show that the experiences of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia might be helpful in this respect.
THE NEW ZEALAND MODEL
Since 1992 the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia has been divided into three tikanga which order their own affairs within and according to their respective cultural traditions. The word tikanga, which is not translated in the English version of the Constitution, designates a part of the people bound up by a common cultural tradition. The so-called tikanga Pākēha comprises those church members whose ancestors came to New Zealand from Europe and who kept their European, predominantly English, traditions in their new environment (and those ‘who wish to be ministered to within tikanga Pākēha’Footnote 9). Tikanga Māori comprises those church members of Māori ancestry, whose ancestors already lived in New Zealand before the Europeans came (and those others who wish to be ministered to in this tradition). Tikanga Pasefika encompasses Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and the Cook Islands. The tikanga structure was introduced in 1992 in order to ensure that the Māori minority and the populations of the Polynesian islands remained able to maintain their cultural tradition.
The ‘Dioceses in New Zealand’ – that is the seven dioceses of Auckland, Waikato and Taranaki, Waiapu, Wellington, Nelson, Christchurch and Dunedin – have responsibility for provision of ministry to those who wish to be ministered to within tikanga Pākēha. A representative body of the several dioceses within New Zealand may meet in synodical conference, which consists of the three distinct orders of bishops, clergy and laity; this synodical conference has the power to make common regulations for the dioceses in New Zealand.Footnote 10
Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa has responsibility for provision of ministry to those who wish to be ministered to within tikanga Māori.Footnote 11 It comprises the five hui amorangi of Te Tai Tokerau, Te Manawa o te Wheke, Te Tairawhiti, Te Upoko o te Ika and Te Waipounamu. The official documents of the Church do not give an English translation of the term hui amorangi but as they are individually called Pīhopatanga, and as Pīhopa means ‘bishop’ it seems justifiable to talk of them as bishoprics.Footnote 12 The boundaries of these bishoprics differ from those of the individual dioceses in tikanga Pākēha; as a whole, however, the hui amorangi cover the same territory as the tikanga Pākēha dioceses in their entirety.
The Diocese of Polynesia, incorporating the episcopal units of Polynesia in New Zealand, Vanua Levu and Taveuni, and Viti Levu West, and the archdeaconries of Suva and Ovalau, Samoa and American Samoa, and Tonga,Footnote 13 has responsibility for provision of ministry to those who wish to be ministered to within the tikanga of the Diocese of Polynesia, otherwise called tikanga Pasefika.Footnote 14
Although the tikanga Māori is divided in hui amorangi, it is regarded as a unity like the Diocese of Polynesia, as compared with the individual tikanga Pākēha dioceses; thus an alteration of the Constitution requires the assent of the Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa as such but a majority only of the (Pākēha) dioceses of New Zealand, and of the Diocese of Polynesia, and the confirmation of the proposal by the General Synod after a fresh General Election of its members by a majority of two thirds of the members in each order.Footnote 15
Provincial structure
Canon B XX 1 acknowledges and declares that the common life of the province is a life based on a partnership and covenant relationship between the constituent parts of the Church. In structuring and organising themselves according to their respective tikanga, Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa, the several dioceses in New Zealand and the Diocese of Polynesia are obliged to promote and work for harmonious relations with the people of each other tikanga within the province (Canon B XX 2). The standing committee of each diocese in New Zealand, Te Runanga Whāiti of Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa and each hui amorangi whāiti and the standing committee of the Diocese of Polynesia are each charged with the direct responsibility of ensuring that each of them is functioning on the basis of the covenants expressed in the Constitution of the province, and in partnership with the other partners (Canon B XX 3).
Each partner and its constituent parts must seek to ensure that adequate provision and support is available to the other partners to assist in the effective proclamation and communication of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the provision of ministry among the people whom each seeks to serve, recognising that in partnership there is common responsibility and mutual interdependence (Canon B XX 4).
Any person or persons or organised body in the province may, under arrangements agreed to by any diocese in New Zealand with Te Pīhopatanga or the Diocese of Polynesia, be and act under the joint authority of that diocese and Te Pīhopatanga or the Diocese of Polynesia.Footnote 16
General Synod
Each Pākēha diocese in New Zealand is entitled to be represented in the General Synod by one or more bishops, two members of the clergy and three members of the laity; the General Synod may determine that some dioceses may elect an additional number of representatives of one or more of the three orders.Footnote 17Te Pīhopatanga te Aotearoa and the Diocese of Polynesia are entitled to be represented in each order by a number of representatives which they determine themselves (Part C 4 and 5);Footnote 18 thus they enjoy a stronger position than the Pākēha dioceses, for which the number of representatives is determined partly in the Constitution itself and partly by the General Synod as a whole.
In all three tikanga the clerical and lay members of the General Synod are elected by their respective orders in such a manner as the tikanga determines (Canon B I 1.1.10(a), 1.2.2, 1.3.2).
The Standing Committee of the General Synod consists of
i. The primate,
ii. The senior bishops (co-presiding bishops),
iii. Three members of the General Synod nominated by the representatives of the Diocese of Polynesia;
iv. Five members of the General Synod nominated by the representatives of Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa;
v. Seven members of the General Synod nominated by the representatives of the dioceses in New Zealand (Canon B I 3.2).
Every decision of the General Synod presupposes the assent of the majority of the members of each of the three orders after the previous assent of the representatives of the Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa, of the Diocese of Polynesia and of the Pākēha dioceses (these taken as a whole).Footnote 19
Any Regulation assented to by all the Pākēha diocesan synods in New Zealand, the Diocesan Synod of Polynesia and the synod of Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa with a view to its acquiring the force of a Regulation of General Synod has the force of a Regulation of the General Synod.Footnote 20 In this case, which renders a decision of the General Synod itself unnecessary, all the individual Pākēha dioceses are on the same level as Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa.
The office of primate
The primacy of the province is held by one or more of the bishops. The General Synod decides either to elect a single bishop to the primacy (Canon A I 7.1.1(a)) or to confer the primacy to the senior bishops of each of the three tikanga acting together (Canon A I 7.1.1(b)). If the primate is to be elected by the General Synod the House of Bishops nominates a bishop (Canon A I 7.3.1, 7.3.3), which nomination needs the confirmation by the clerical and lay members of the General Synod voting together (Canon A I 7.3.10, 7.3.11). The senior bishops in each of the three tikanga are appointed by their respective tikanga (Canon A I 7.1.5) according to regulations made by these tikanga.
If the primate is elected by the General Synod, he or she commissions the senior bishops as co-presiding bishops to act together with the primate in full partnership in carrying out the duties of the primacy (Canon I 7.1.5). If the three senior bishops are the appointed primates under Canon A I 7.1.1(b), each of them can exercise all or any of the functions and powers of the primate individually irrespective of whether the other primates concur with or authorise that action (Canon A I 7.1.6).
Tribunals
The Judicial Committee of the General Synod, which is the highest tribunal of the province and decides on the interpretation of the Constitution and on appeals by persons aggrieved by any act or decision of any diocesan synod or Te Runanganui o Te Pīhopatangfa o Aotearoa,Footnote 21 consists of nine members, among whom there must be at least two members from each tikanga and at least one bishop, one ordained minister and three lay people (Canon C IV 2.2). The members are elected by the General Synod in this manner: voting is by orders, and to be elected each person must obtain a majority of the votes in each order (Canon C IV 2.3.4). If a declaration of assent by tikanga is called for, it is taken prior to the vote by orders, and each tikanga is asked to vote for or against each name. If any name does not receive a majority of votes in each tikanga, that name is removed from the ballot paper (Canon C IV 2.3.6). If, as a result of the ballot in the General Synod, the number of persons receiving a majority of votes in each order is insufficient to comply with the requirements of Canon C IV 2.2, a further ballot or ballots are held, until the required numbers have been elected, first for the minimum number from each tikanga, secondly for the minimum number from each order and thirdly for the required number of members for the committee (Canon C IV 2.3.8.1, 2.3.8.4).
Besides the Judicial Committee there exists a Tribunal on Doctrine for the purpose of deciding all questions of doctrine duly referred to it (Canon C V 1).Footnote 22 This tribunal consists of five bishops – three bishops elected by the bishops in full-time active and constant episcopal ministry in the (Pākēha) dioceses in New Zealand, one bishop elected by the bishops in Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa and one bishop representing the Diocese of Polynesia (Canon C V 2.1) – together with persons in the orders of priest or deacon equal in number to the aggregate number of bishops (Canon C V 2.2) and baptised lay persons of at least twenty years and otherwise duly qualified to be members of the General Synod equal in number to the aggregate number of bishops. These priests or deacons and lay persons are elected by the members of the General Synod of their respective orders, and ‘such election shall be conducted otherwise in accordance with the principles of partnership as expressed in the Constitution regulations and standing orders of the General Synod’ (Canon C V 3.1). The quorum of the tribunal is the majority of members entitled to sit in each order, provided at least one person from each tikanga is present (Canon C V 3.6).
Church discipline
The different tikanga also play a substantial part in the regulation of church discipline (Title D of the Canons). Bishops have a general duty whenever it is appropriate to endeavour to achieve an outcome within their tikanga accepted by all the parties as a first step before other process under Title D (Canon D I Part B 1). Investigation of complaints under the headings ‘Duties of clerical office’, ‘Pastoral relationships’ and ‘Standards required of ministers’ (Canon D I Part A 3, 9, 11 and 12) must take due account of the expectations and customs of each tikanga of ministers within that tikanga (Canon D I Part B 7).
A POSSIBLE MODEL FOR EUROPE?
Can this constitutional system of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia serve as a model for a constitution of an Anglican province of continental Europe, whereby the current different jurisdictions retain their distinct characters and overlapping territories but within a single province?
The situation of Anglicanism in continental Europe is very different from that in New Zealand. In particular, it should be noted that all the Anglican and Old Catholic Churches in Europe would belong, in New Zealand terms, to the tikanga Pākēha. There is no predominant settler nation living side by side with an indigenous minority population which feels at a disadvantage and strives for equal treatment and a permanent safeguarding of its cultural heritage. All the Anglican Churches in Europe are more or less small minorities in the countries in which they live. However, it appears worthwhile to look at the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Province of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia for means of solving the European problems at least for a transitional period. Any permanent solution must ensure that no participating Church is consistently outvoted. The solution arrived at by the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia cannot be translated to continental Europe in its entirety.
In a potentially united Anglican/Old Catholic Church in Europe, the question of primacy could be resolved with reference to European ecclesiastical history. As the oldest see within the jurisdictions concerned is the Archiepiscopal See of Utrecht, it might be considered acceptable to attach primacy to this see. The acceptability of this solution would certainly be enhanced if the territory of the primatial see were reduced to a size which would not unduly burden the primate beyond his or her primatial functions. In this case it could also be envisaged that any bishop of any of the different ‘tikanga’ might be raised to the primacy.
The Anglican Church in Australia maintains an interesting provision governing the relationship between the Church as a whole and its constituent dioceses. Article 30 Proviso (a) of its Constitution states that any canon passed by General Synod which affects ‘the ritual, ceremonial or discipline of this Church shall be deemed to affect the order and good government of the Church within a diocese, and shall not come into force in any diocese unless and until the diocese by ordinance adopts [it]’. If the General Synod ‘declares that the provisions of any other canon affect the order and good government of the Church within, or the church trust property of a diocese’, this canon also does not come into force in any diocese unless and until it adopts it by ordinance (Proviso (b)).
If the General Synod does not make such a declaration, the synod of any diocese or the diocesan council may still declare that the provisions of a canon affect its order and good government or its church trust property (Proviso (c)). If the diocesan synod or council does so within a period of two years from the date of the passing of the canon the consequences depend on the decision of the standing committee of the General Synod. If the standing committee advises the President of the General Synod that it agrees with the opinion of the diocesan synod or council, the canon ceases to apply to the objecting diocese (Proviso (c)(i)). If the standing committee disagrees with the opinion of the objecting diocesan synod or council, the President of the General Synod has to refer the case to the Appellate Tribunal of the Anglican Church in Australia, and unless the appellate tribunal decides against the objecting diocese (that is, holding that the canon in question does not affect the order and good government of the Church in the diocese), the canon is deemed not to have come into force in the objecting diocese (Proviso (c)(iii)). If a diocesan synod or council declares its opinion at any time after the expiration of two years the procedure is the same, with the only difference that the canon ceases to apply from the date of this declaration (Proviso (c)(ii), (iii)).
A regulation like this could also safeguard the different traditions in an Anglican province of continental Europe. Moreover, it would be most appropriate as a general constitutional principle in any episcopal church in which, according to catholic tradition, the diocese with its bishop is the basic and fundamental unit of the local church.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it has to be borne in mind that seven Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches are in communion with the Anglican Churches of the British Isles through the Porvoo Agreement of the early 1990s.Footnote 23 This renders it appropriate not to extend the territory of any future Anglican province of continental Europe to the territories of these Churches. In the Porvoo texts the Church of England, which is to be the only Anglican Church maintaining chaplaincies in the territories of the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches, and the participating Lutheran Churches have committed themselves ‘to welcome diaspora congregations into the life of the indigenous churches’. On this basis, it should be no problem to integrate the Anglican chaplaincies as foreign-language congregations into the organisation of the ‘indigenous’ churches without destroying their Anglican tradition.Footnote 24
